Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520 --- Comment #10 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-16 20:34:05 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Regarding the upstream version naming convention... I agree with you, the > upstream naming convention is awful (e.g., "Beryllium"). This is an odd duck, > and I'd like to hear others' comments. > > I looked over the Fedora policy, here, on version numbers: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Version > The policy focuses on the situations where non-numeric version identifiers are > Pre-release packages (e.g., "alpha"), Post-release packages (e.g., "1.3a"), > snapshots, and Jpackage-derived packages. None of these situations applies. > In this case, we have a group that gives alphabetic names to versions, and > you'd have to know the periodic table to know which is newer. > > We *could* use a YYYYMMDD system, but that is a little awkward. > > Translating the element names into their numeric atomic number (number of > protons) isn't a bad idea at all, but I think you should use "0." as the prefix > instead of "1.". This means that Beryllium would become "0.4". That way, if > they switch to a more conventional version numbering system in the future, we > can switch to it without using epochs. In addition, I think you should add the > word "beryllium" to the release name, so that people can easily figure out > which one they have. > > I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on version/release naming. So, to clarify, you're suggesting a release of something like "2.beryllium"? (The other way around would affect EVR comparisons, no?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review